The law of sedition was introduced by the British to suppress freedom of speech and expression during the under Section - 124A of IPC, 1860. Many freedom fighters, including Subhas Chandra Bose, Mahatma Gandhi, and Bal Gangadhar Tilak, were charged under this law.

There is a conflict between the sedition law and freedom of speech. Politicians often use the sedition law to silence their critics. Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, which is a fundamental right. There is a debate about whether this law is necessary in a democracy. Some people argue that the sedition law is needed to protect national security, while others argue that it is a tool of oppression.

The sedition law is a controversial law that has been used to both protect national security and suppress freedom of speech. It is important to debate the need for this law in a democracy.

The ongoing conflict between sedition laws and the freedom of speech traces its roots back to the colonial era. The British colonial rulers introduced this legal framework as a means to stifle dissent, particularly from freedom fighters and leaders who dared to speak out against their rule, thus diminishing the perceived threat to their authority. In 1837, Thomas Babington Macaulay played a pivotal role in drafting the sedition law, and its formal introduction to India occurred in 1870 when James Stephen included it through an amendment.

Over the years, this law has been repeatedly criticized for its infringement upon the basic right to freedom of speech and expression, often becoming a political weapon employed to silence dissenting voices. Paradoxically, the sedition law has been abolished by countries like the UK, New Zealand, and Ghana, yet it remains firmly in place in India. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, 2023 repealed Section 124A, IPC.

The year 2021 alone witnessed a staggering 76 sedition cases, as reported by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). Even more concerning is the fact that journalists and media personnel have frequently faced charges under this law. It is imperative to emphasize that mere criticism or dissent should not be met with sedition charges.

In a democratic nation, the significance of freedom of speech and expression cannot be overstated. The ability to freely convey one's thoughts and emotions is a hallmark of a truly democratic society. However, it's important to note that the right enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and is subject to certain restrictions. These restrictions are imposed to:

1. Safeguard the sovereignty and integrity of the country,
2. Prevent incitement of violence or unlawful activities,
3. Counteract hate speech and related harmful consequences.

The balance between preserving national interests and protecting individual freedoms remains a constant challenge in the context of sedition laws and freedom of expression.

In the case of Vinod Dua vs. Union of India in 2021, the Supreme Court dismissed a First Information Report (FIR) filed against senior journalist Vinod Dua in Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. This came over a year after local BJP officials accused him of making derogatory remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the central government on his YouTube show. A bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran ruled that every journalist is entitled to protection under the Kedar Nath Singh case, which defined the scope of the sedition law under Section 124A IPC.

On February 13, 2021, a 22-year-old climate change activist named Disha Ravi was arrested under sedition charges due to her involvement with a "toolkit" related to the farmer's protest. However, the Delhi Court ordered her release within a week of her arrest, stating that sedition cannot be used to protect the government's reputation.

Another significant case is Tara Singh Gopi Chand vs. The State in 1950. In this case, the Punjab High Court declared the sedition law constitutionally invalid because it imposed unreasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. This decision prompted the government led by Jawaharlal Nehru to introduce reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression.

In 2010, Dr. Binayak Sen, a civil rights activist, was convicted of sedition and sentenced to life imprisonment by a Chhattisgarh Court for allegedly conspiring with Naxalites and attempting to establish a network against the government. However, the Supreme Court granted him bail in 2011, emphasizing that being sympathetic to a cause does not constitute sedition in a democratic country.

In the case of Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar in 1962, the Supreme Court sought to limit the potential misuse of the sedition law while affirming its constitutional validity. The Court clarified that criticism of the government does not amount to sedition unless it incites public disturbance or violence.

India is renowned as the world's largest democracy. However, when freedom of speech is constrained by political interests in a democratic nation, it raises concerns. In the 2022 press freedom index, India ranked 150th out of 180 countries, but in 2023, it slipped to 161st place. Norway, Finland, and Denmark secured the top three positions. Sedition not only threatens freedom of speech but also poses a risk to democracy. It can be argued that this law is susceptible to misuse.

In May 2022, the Supreme Court of India took a significant step by temporarily suspending and dismissing all ongoing court trials related to Section 124A of the IPC, a colonial-era law. The Supreme Court granted permission to the Union of India to conduct a thorough review of this outdated law. This decision was made by a three-judge bench led by former Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, with the aim of suspending all sedition charges to prevent further misuse of the law.

This marks a commendable and unprecedented action by the Supreme Court in the history of India's sedition law. It highlights the urgency of moving away from oppressive colonial-era legislation. The sedition law has been particularly problematic due to its frequent misapplication, stifling freedom of speech and expression.

Criticism has always played a constructive role in societal progress. Whether it comes from the media or the general public, no one should be denied their right to express their opinions or criticize the government and its policies. It's essential to recognize that criticizing national policies does not equate to being anti-national; rather, it's a means of expressing one's thoughts and perspectives on those policies and laws.

The debate surrounding sedition laws and freedom of speech seems never-ending, but there's a possibility that this debate could be resolved if the law itself is abolished after passing the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill, 2023. However, it's crucial to strike a balance by considering the nation's security concerns. The law should explicitly state that only those who attempt to disrupt public peace or incite violence should be subject to its penalties. The necessity of this law will continue to be a contentious issue. Our primary goal should be to safeguard the fundamental right to express ourselves freely without it being curtailed through the misuse of sedition laws.